Jim,
I think there are atleast two questions to ask:
a) Should dealing with configurations go into the requirement document. In
other words is it a requirement for the DAV protocol to deal with
configurations. (this is the point I was debating in this discussion
thread). My position here is *yes*.
b) Should configurations as a requirement be dealt with in the first version
of the protocol draft. My position here is *it depends*.
From what Bob said , it sounds to me that configurations are a requirement
(atleast from his perspective), but need not be scheduled to be addressed in
the first release. This is my position too.
Given the way we are going now (based on your announced schedule), I don't
see versioning happening in the next 6 months. If that is the case,
versioning (and configurations hopefully) really are dealt with in the
second version of the Web-DAV protocol. In other words, my sense of our
progress is that DAV *will not* address versioning in the first release of
the protocol draft. and hence addressing configurations is a moot issue.
Correct me if my analysis is wrong.
My position is not that we need to address configurations *now*. We are
after all discussing the requirements document and *now* impacts scheduling
and technical specification evolution issue. My position is that dealing
with configurations *is a requirement* for DAV. Which version of the draft
protocol addresses configurations depends on how much progress we make on
nailing down the spec. of versions and properties.
Hope this helps.